Compound Eye Evolution: Highly Conserved Retinula and Cone Cell Patterns Indicate a Common Origin of the Insect and Crustacean Ommatidium

Melzer, Roland R.; Diersch, Regine; Smola, Ulrich

doi:10.1007/s001140050442

Cited by 68 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The name "Tetraconata" has been suggested for a taxon that embraces the hexapods and crustaceans (Dohle, 2001;Richter, 2002) in reference to the tetrapartite crystalline cone in the ommatidia as a synapomorphy of these groups. It has long been known that many aspects of the eye design are virtually identical between Hexapoda and Crustacea: the ommatidia of both groups have a small, strictly determined and individually identifiable set of cells (e.g., Melzer et al, 1997;Paulus, 2000;Bitsch and Bitsch, 2005). Furthermore, many similarities exist during eye formation in these two groups (Melzer et al, 2000;Hafner and Tokarski, 2001).…”

Section: Comparison To Eye Growth In Drosophila Melanogaster and Evolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The structure of the lateral eyes has always played an important role in discussions of phylogenetic relationships of Arthropoda (recent contributions e.g., Melzer et al, 1997;Paulus, 2000, Dohle, 2001Richter, 2002;Mü ller et al, 2003;Bitsch and Bitsch, 2005;Harzsch et al, 2005b;Mü ller and Meyer-Rochow, 2006). Furthermore, in recent years, aspects of eye development emerge as important characters for phylogenetic analyses and, therefore, are examined in a variety of arthropods, including Crustacea (Harzsch et al, 1999;Melzer et al, 2000;Hafner and Tokarski, 2001;Harzsch and Walossek, 2001;Wildt and Harzsch, 2002), Hexapoda (Friedrich et al, 1996;Friedrich and Benzer, 2000;Friedrich, 2003), and Myriapoda .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolution of arthropod visual systems: Development of the eyes and central visual pathways in the horseshoe crabLimulus polyphemusLinnaeus, 1758 (Chelicerata, Xiphosura)

Harzsch

Vilpoux

Blackburn

et al. 2006

Developmental Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite ongoing interest into the architecture, biochemistry, and physiology of the visual systems of the xiphosuran Limulus polyphemus, their ontogenetic aspects have received little attention. Thus, we explored the development of the lateral eyes and associated neuropils in late embryos and larvae of these animals. The first external evidence of the lateral eyes was the appearance of white pigment spots-guanophores associated with the rudimentary photoreceptors-on the dorsolateral side of the late embryos, suggesting that these embryos can perceive light. The first brown pigment emerges in the eyes during the last (third) embryonic molt to the trilobite stage. However, ommatidia develop from this field of pigment toward the end of the larval trilobite stage so that the young larvae at hatching do not have object recognition. Double staining with the proliferation marker bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) and an antibody against L. polyphemus myosin III, which is concentrated in photoreceptors of this species, confirmed previous reports that, in the trilobite larvae, new cellular material is added to the eye field from an anteriorly located proliferation zone. Pulse-chase experiments indicated that these new cells differentiate into new ommatidia. Examining larval eyes labeled for opsin showed that the new ommatidia become organized into irregular rows that give the eye field a triangular appearance. Within the eye field, the ommatidia are arranged in an imperfect hexagonal array. Myosin III immunoreactivity in trilobite larvae also revealed the architecture of the central visual pathways associated with the median eye complex and the lateral eyes. Double labeling with myosin III and BrdU showed that neurogenesis persists in the larval brain and suggested that new neurons of both the lamina and the medulla originate from a single common proliferation zone. These data are compared with eye development in Drosophila melanogaster and are discussed with regard to new ideas on eye evolution in the Euarthropoda. Developmental Dynamics 235:2641-2655, 2006.

show abstract

Section: Comparison To Eye Growth In Drosophila Melanogaster and Evolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of arthropod visual systems: Development of the eyes and central visual pathways in the horseshoe crabLimulus polyphemusLinnaeus, 1758 (Chelicerata, Xiphosura)

Harzsch

Vilpoux

Blackburn

et al. 2006

Developmental Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surveying even more distantly related species leads to the inference that the compound eye may be considerably older. This is clearly suggested by the widespread presence of compound eyes in crustacean species, many of which include highly detailed blueprints of insect-like compound eyes (Paulus 1979;Melzer et al 1997). There has been considerable discussion of whether these similarities could have been the consequence of independent evolution or shared evolutionary ancestry (Osorio and Bacon 1994).…”

Section: Ancient Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of Insect Eyes: Tales of Ancient Heritage, Deconstruction, Reconstruction, Remodeling, and Recycling

Buschbeck

Friedrich

2008

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual organs of insects are known for their impressive evolutionary conservation. Compound eyes built from ommatidia with four cone cells are now accepted to date back to the last common ancestor of insects and crustaceans. In species as different as fruit flies and tadpole shrimps, the stepwise cellular patterning steps of the early compound eye exhibit detailed similarities implying 500 million years of developmental conservation. Strikingly, there is also a cryptic diversity of insect visual organs, which gives proof to evolution's versatility in molding even the most tenacious structures into something new. We explore this fascinating aspect in regard to the structure and function of a variety of different insect eyes. This includes work on the unique compound-single-chamber combination eye of twistedwinged insects and the bizarre evolutionary trajectories of specialized larval eyes in endopterygote insects.

show abstract

“…Melzer et al 1997, Paulus 2000, Bitsch and Bitsch 2005 so that the name "Tetraconata" has been suggested for a monphylum that embraces these two taxa (Dohle 2001, Richter 2002 in reference to the tetrapartite crystalline cone in the ommatidia as a synapomorphy. Despite the fact that the ontogeny of D. melanogaster as a species with a holometabolous developmental cycle is hardly comparable with crustaceans with direct development there are nevertheless many conserved motifs in eye formation between insects and crustaceans in addition to some differences ( Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the complex geometrical arrangement of these cells that form a functional optical unit the design of the arthropod visual system provides a wealth of morphological characters that play a key role for our understanding of the phylogenetic relationships within this group and the evolution of eye design (reviews e.g. : Paulus 1979, Elofsson 1992, Melzer et al 1997, Gaten 1998, Richter 1999 has contributed new arguments to this debate by providing a wealth of new information on the ultrastructure of myriapodan eyes that now allow a sound comparison of eye structure in representatives of this group with the Tetraconata. What is more, information on the development of the lateral eyes take a more and more important role in contributing informative character sets ( Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetisches Symposium Göttingen

Willmann¹,

Ökologie²

2008

Species, Phylogeny and Evolution - SPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harzsch, S. The architecture of the nervous system provides important characters for phylogenetic reconbstructions: Examples from the Arthropoda 33Mayr, G. The contribution of fossils to the reconstruction of the higher-level phylogeny of birds 59Schneider, H. Plant morphology as the cornerstone to the integration of fossil and extant taxa in phylogenetic systematics 65 Die beiden ersten Beiträge von Tautz und Sudhaus nehmen eine Sonderstellung ein. Sie behandeln das Thema sehr umfassend und allgemein. Sie werfen die Frage nach dem Stellenwert und der Berechtigung morphologischer Forschung im phylogenetischen Rahmen auf. Sie fallen auch dadurch auf, dass sie nicht nur auf Deutsch gehalten wurden, sondern auch in dieser Sprache niedergeschrieben wurden. Selbstverständlich publiziert man heute auf Englisch, will man international wahrgenommen werden. Aber es muss auch möglich sein, wichtige Gedankengänge und Positionen in der Sprache auszudrücken, die man in ihren Feinheiten beherrscht und die möglicherweise auch andere außerhalb des wissenschaftlichen Zirkels erreicht.Diethard Tautz (Köln) referierte einleitend über das Thema "Morphologie versus DNA-Sequenzen in der Phylogenie-Rekonstruktion". Es war eine glückliche Wahl, Tautz als Redner vorzusehen. Er kommt von der Entwicklungsbiologie her und hat mit einigen Artikeln zur Molekularsystematik der Arthropoden Furore gemacht. Wie man besonders aus seinem bekannten Artikel in "Nature" (Friedrich & Tautz 1995) ersehen kann, hat er dabei die morphologischen Merkmale und Argumente und die möglichen Konflikte mit den molekularen Stammbäumen klar vor Augen. Tautz ist zur Zeit Präsident der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft (DZG) und war bis vor 4 kurzem Sprecher des DFG-Schwerpunkts "Evolution entwicklungsbiologischer Prozesse". Er kennt also die Strömungen in der Wissenschaftspolitik genau und weiß um die Geringschätzung der phylogenetisch orientierten Morphologie durch viele seiner Kollegen.In dem Vortrag wurden mehrere Thesen aufgestellt und sehr klar (und manchmal bewusst überspitzt) herausgearbeitet. Man hatte oft das Gefühl, dass bei den Zuhörern Kopfnicken und Stirnerunzeln abwechselten. Morphologen unterstellen den Molekularsystematikern leicht -ob zu Recht oder Unrecht sei dahingestellt -, dass sie, ähnlich wie manche Pattern-Cladisten, vielleicht nicht einmal Artbildung und Evolution als Grundvoraussetzung für ihre formalen Diagramme ansehen und dass sie ihre ständig wechselnden "Trees" eher als Spielmaterial, nicht als ein Ringen um die beste Annäherung an das wirkliche historische Geschehen betrachten. Da ist es eine große Erleichterung, aus berufenem Munde so klare und unzweideutige Aussagen zu hören wie: Es hat nur eine evolutionäre Historie gegeben, oder: Die Phylogenierekonstruktion ist eine zentrale Aufgabe der Evolutionsbiologie, oder: Es gibt keine hypothesenfreie Phylogenierekonstruktion.Ein wichtiges Anliegen des Vortrags war die These, dass es für die Herausbildung morphologischer und molekularer Merkmale, ihre Übereinstimmungen wie ihre Untersc...

show abstract

Compound Eye Evolution: Highly Conserved Retinula and Cone Cell Patterns Indicate a Common Origin of the Insect and Crustacean Ommatidium

Cited by 68 publications

References 0 publications

Evolution of arthropod visual systems: Development of the eyes and central visual pathways in the horseshoe crabLimulus polyphemusLinnaeus, 1758 (Chelicerata, Xiphosura)

Evolution of arthropod visual systems: Development of the eyes and central visual pathways in the horseshoe crabLimulus polyphemusLinnaeus, 1758 (Chelicerata, Xiphosura)

Evolution of Insect Eyes: Tales of Ancient Heritage, Deconstruction, Reconstruction, Remodeling, and Recycling

Phylogenetisches Symposium Göttingen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About